Bioreceptive Façade Design
Improving our harsh urban climates
P5 presentation - Milou Klein – 4389123 – Mentors: Alejandro Prieto, Marc Ottele – Technische Universiteit Delft – Building Technology
Bioreceptivity
“the aptitude of a material to be colonised by one or several groups of living organisms without necessarily undergoing any biodeterioration ”
(Guilitte, 1995)
Why bioreceptivity?
City climate
Temperature in cities, reproduced from Oke,
Mills, Christen, & Voogt, 2017
Why bioreceptivity?
Facade greening
(DeMilked, 2015)
Why bioreceptivity?
Facade greening
Green facade Living wall Bioreceptive facade
Research
• Material properties concrete
• Laboratory tests under ‘optimum’ conditions
(Manso & Aguado, 2016)
Research
• Material properties concrete
• Laboratory tests under ‘optimum’ conditions
(Manso & Aguado, 2016) (Aničić et al., 2009)
Research
• Material properties concrete
• Laboratory tests under ‘optimum’ conditions
(Manso & Aguado, 2016) (Aničić et al., 2009)
How is bioreceptivity affected by the urban climate and how does it contribute to improve it?
Focus
Are bioreceptive façade panels an effective measure to improve city climates in The Netherlands?
Focus
Are bioreceptive façade panels an effective measure to improve city climates in The Netherlands?
• Temperature reduction
• Air quality
• Water retainment
• Aesthetical benefits
Focus
Are bioreceptive façade panels an effective measure to improve city climates in The Netherlands?
• Temperature reduction
• Air quality
• Water retainment
• Aesthetical benefits
Restrictions
Precast concrete façade panels
Bioreceptivity: Bryophytes (moss)
Case study area: Rotterdam Façade detail
Structure
Are bioreceptive façade panels an effective measure to improve city climates in The Netherlands?
Structure
Are bioreceptive façade panels an effective measure to improve city climates in The Netherlands?
Structure
Are bioreceptive façade panels an effective measure to improve city climates in The Netherlands?
Structure
Are bioreceptive façade panels an effective measure to improve city climates in The Netherlands?
Structure
Are bioreceptive façade panels an effective measure to improve city climates in The Netherlands?
Structure
Are bioreceptive façade panels an effective measure to improve city climates in The Netherlands?
How to develop a design tool for bioreceptive facade panels to account for
the bryophytes’ habitat conditions in The Netherlands?
Natural habitat
Conditions
Temperature 15 - 25 °C
Nutrients Low requirement
Water Moist climates
Solar radiation Low light conditions
Humidity High levels >50%
Wind Intermediate
Natural habitat
Conditions Limits
Temperature 15 - 25 °C • Moisture important factor in their habitat; Bryophytes
Nutrients Low requirement are poikilohydric, this means their hydration state is
Water Moist climates controlled by the environment. (87% - 305%)
Solar radiation Low light conditions
Humidity High levels >50%
Wind Intermediate
Natural habitat
Conditions Limits
Temperature 15 - 25 °C • Moisture important factor in their habitat; Bryophytes
Nutrients Low requirement are poikilohydric, this means their hydration state is
Water Moist climates controlled by the environment.
Solar radiation Low light conditions • Bryophytes are in a dehydrated, metabolically inactive
Humidity High levels >50% state (dormant)
Wind Intermediate
Natural habitat
Conditions Limits
Temperature 15 - 25 °C • Moisture important factor in their habitat; Bryophytes
Nutrients Low requirement are poikilohydric, this means their hydration state is
Water Moist climates controlled by the environment.
Solar radiation Low light conditions • Bryophytes are in a dehydrated, metabolically inactive
Humidity High levels >50% state (dormant)
Wind Intermediate • Too much sunlight damages bryophytes (better
resistant when moist)
Façade implementation; city climate
Conditions
Temperature 15 - 25 °C Increased
Nutrients Low requirement Decreased
Water Moist climates Slight increase
Solar radiation Low light conditions Decreased
Humidity High levels >50% Decreased
Wind Intermediate Decreased
Façade implementation; city climate
Conditions Limits
Temperature 15 - 25 °C Increased • Water availability not a limiting factor on façade
Nutrients Low requirement Decreased application due to irrigation.
Water Moist climates Slight increase
Solar radiation Low light conditions Decreased
Humidity High levels >50% Decreased
Wind Intermediate Decreased
Façade implementation; city climate
Conditions Limits
Temperature 15 - 25 °C Increased • Bryophytes are in a dehydrated, metabolically inactive
Nutrients Low requirement Decreased state (dormant)
Water Moist climates Slight increase • Too much sunlight damages bryophytes (better
Solar radiation Low light conditions Decreased resistant when moist)
Humidity High levels >50% Decreased
Wind Intermediate Decreased
Façade implementation; city climate
Conditions Limits
Temperature 15 - 25 °C Increased • Bryophytes are in a dehydrated, metabolically inactive
Nutrients Low requirement Decreased state (dormant)
Water Moist climates Slight increase • Too much sunlight damages bryophytes (better
Solar radiation Low light conditions Decreased resistant when moist)
Humidity High levels >50% Decreased
Wind Intermediate Decreased
Façade implementation; city climate
Conditions Limits
Temperature 15 - 25 °C Increased • Bryophytes are in a dehydrated, metabolically inactive
Nutrients Low requirement Decreased state (dormant)
Water Moist climates Slight increase • Too much sunlight damages bryophytes (better
Solar radiation Low light conditions Decreased resistant when moist)
Humidity High levels >50% Decreased
Wind Intermediate Decreased
Design tool
Façade implementation; city climate
Conditions Limits
Temperature 15 - 25 °C Increased • Bryophytes are in a dehydrated, metabolically inactive
Nutrients Low requirement Decreased state (dormant)
Water Moist climates Slight increase • Too much sunlight damages bryophytes (better
Solar radiation Low light conditions Decreased resistant when moist)
Humidity High levels >50% Decreased
Wind Intermediate Decreased
Façade implementation; city climate
Conditions Limits
Temperature 15 - 25 °C Increased • The Netherlands 21 days >25°C
Nutrients Low requirement Decreased • +/- 30 days <50% relative humidity in summer
Water Moist climates Slight increase
Solar radiation Low light conditions Decreased
Humidity High levels >50% Decreased
Wind Intermediate Decreased
City climate to city structure
Challenging and potential urban scenario’s in Rotterdam
(Van der Hoeven & Wandl, 2015)
City climate to city structure
Challenging and potential urban scenario’s in Rotterdam
Building envelope [m2] Sky view factor
Rotterdam
Challenging and potential urban scenario’s in Rotterdam
Cool district Kralingen
City climate to city structure
LCZ 1 LCZ 6
LCZ 2 LCZ 7
LCZ 3 LCZ 8
LCZ 4 LCZ 9
LCZ 5 LCZ 10
LCZ’s, reproduced from Oke, Mills,
Christen, & Voogt, 2017
Rotterdam
Challenging and potential urban scenario’s in Rotterdam
Cool district Kralingen
LCZ 1 – Compact Highrise LCZ 3 – Compact lowrise
LCZ 5 – Open midrise
High building envelope ratio
High sky view factor
Representative neighborhood
typology in The Netherlands
Rotterdam
Challenging and potential urban scenario’s in Rotterdam
Cool district Kralingen
LCZ 1 – Compact Highrise LCZ 3 – Compact lowrise
LCZ 5 – Open midrise
High building envelope ratio
High sky view factor
Representative neighborhood
typology in The Netherlands
Kralingen
LCZ 5 – Open midrise LCZ 3 – Compact lowrise
Building plan fraction Building plan fraction
37% 60%
Canyon aspect Canyon aspect
0.5 1
Building height Building height
+/- 13 m +/- 7.5 m
Field survey
LCZ 5 – Open midrise LCZ 3 – Compact lowrise
Building plan fraction Building plan fraction
37% 60%
Canyon aspect Canyon aspect
0.5 1
Building height Building height
+/- 13 m +/- 7.5 m
Field survey
Match literature with real life scenario
LCZ 5 – Open midrise LCZ 3 – Compact lowrise
Building plan fraction Building plan fraction
37% 60%
Canyon aspect Canyon aspect
0.5 1
Building height Building height
+/- 13 m +/- 7.5 m
Field survey
The bryophyte growth in the midrise area will be more abundant.
LCZ 5 – Open midrise LCZ 3 – Compact lowrise
Building plan fraction Building plan fraction
37% 60%
Canyon aspect Canyon aspect
0.5 1
Building height Building height
+/- 13 m +/- 7.5 m
Field survey
The bryophyte growth in the midrise area will be more abundant.
LCZ 5 – Open midrise LCZ 3 – Compact lowrise
Building plan fraction Building plan fraction
37% 60%
Canyon aspect Canyon aspect
0.5 1
Building height Building height
+/- 13 m +/- 7.5 m
Field survey
The bryophyte growth in the midrise area will be more abundant.
LCZ 5 – Open midrise LCZ 3 – Compact lowrise
Field survey
Field survey
Solar radiation
Field survey
Humidity
Field survey
Water availability
Field survey
Surface angle
Design tool
Designing the panel geometry
Design tool
Designing the panel geometry
Vertical pattern Horizontal pattern
Design tool
Designing the panel geometry
Vertical pattern Horizontal pattern
Self shading geometry
Design tool
Designing the panel geometry
[1] Design concept
[2] Moisture
[3] Radiation measurements / shading assessment
[4] Visibility
[5] Coverage
Design tool
[1] Design concept
[2] Moisture
[3] Radiation measurements / shading assessment
[4] Visibility
[5] Coverage
Designer
Design tool
[1] Design concept
[2] Moisture
[3] Radiation measurements / shading assessment
[4] Visibility
[5] Coverage
Section Section
Design tool
[1] Design concept
[2] Moisture
[3] Radiation measurements / shading assessment
[4] Visibility
[5] Coverage Plan view
Design tool
[1] Design concept
[2] Moisture
[3] Radiation measurements / shading assessment
[4] Visibility
[5] Coverage
Radiation analysis design location 21st of June
Design tool
[1] Design concept
[2] Moisture
[3] Radiation measurements / shading assessment
[4] Visibility Visibility on bryophytes
[5] Coverage
Design tool
[1] Design concept
[2] Moisture
[3] Radiation measurements / shading assessment
[4] Visibility
[5] Coverage
Design tool
Design tool
[1] Design concept
[2] Moisture
[3] Radiation measurements / shading assessment
[4] Visibility
[5] Coverage
How to design a bioreceptive facade panel in urban environmental
conditions of The Netherlands?
Design
Worst case scenario in representative neighborhood
Design
Worst case scenario in representative neighborhood
Design
Vertical pattern Horizontal pattern
Design
Vertical pattern Horizontal pattern
Panel design 1
[1] Design concept
[2] Moisture
[3] Radiation measurements / shading assessment
[4] Visibility
[5] Coverage
(Freepik, n.d.)
Panel design 1
[1] Design concept
[2] Moisture
[3] Radiation measurements / shading assessment
[4] Visibility
[5] Coverage
Panel design 1
[1] Design concept
[2] Moisture
[3] Radiation measurements / shading assessment
[4] Visibility
[5] Coverage
Panel design 1
[1] Design concept
[2] Moisture
[3] Radiation measurements / shading assessment
[4] Visibility
[5] Coverage
Zigzagged
Panel design 1
[1] Design concept
[2] Moisture
[3] Radiation measurements / shading assessment
[4] Visibility
[5] Coverage
Radiation on panel
variations
Panel design 1
[1] Design concept
[2] Moisture
[3] Radiation measurements / shading assessment
[4] Visibility
[5] Coverage
Zigzagged
Panel design 1
[1] Design concept
[2] Moisture
[3] Radiation measurements / shading assessment
[4] Visibility
[5] Coverage
Surface angle
Panel design 1
Design
Vertical pattern Horizontal pattern
Panel design 2
[1] Design concept
[2] Moisture
[3] Radiation measurements / shading assessment
[4] Visibility
[5] Coverage
Field observations
Panel design 2
[1] Design concept
[2] Moisture
[3] Radiation measurements / shading assessment
[4] Visibility
[5] Coverage
Panel design 2
[1] Design concept
[2] Moisture
[3] Radiation measurements / shading assessment
[4] Visibility
[5] Coverage
Waterflow
Panel design 2
[1] Design concept
[2] Moisture
[3] Radiation measurements / shading assessment
[4] Visibility
[5] Coverage
Panel design 2
[1] Design concept
[2] Moisture
[3] Radiation measurements / shading assessment
[4] Visibility
[5] Coverage
Radiation on panel
variations
Panel design 2
[1] Design concept
[2] Moisture
[3] Radiation measurements / shading assessment
[4] Visibility
[5] Coverage
Section
Panel design 2
[1] Design concept
[2] Moisture
[3] Radiation measurements / shading assessment
[4] Visibility
[5] Coverage
Radiation on panel
variations
Panel design 2
Panel 1 Panel 2
Comparison
Panel 1 Panel 2
Comparison; Moisture
Panel 1 Panel 2
Comparison; Radiation
Panel 1 Panel 2
Comparison; Coverage
Panel 1 Panel 2
• Surface area; 0.29 m2 • Surface area 0.25 m2
• Downward facing surface; 0.06 m2 • Downward facing surface; 0.09 m2
Comparison
Panel 1 Panel 2
• Radiation; panel 1 performs better in terms of
average sun hours on the panel, especially as H
increases.
• The surface area of panel 1 is more than panel 2,
this means the coverage is potentially higher.
• The surface angle of panel 1 is more suiting for
bryophytes; less downward facing surfaces. This
influences the coverage positively.
Comparison
Panel 1 Panel 2
• Radiation; panel 1 performs better in terms of • Moisture; in terms of moisture panel 2 seems
average sun hours on the panel, especially as H more promising. The panel extends the water
increases. flow and is able to retain water.
• The surface area of panel 1 is more than panel 2,
this means the coverage is potentially higher.
• The surface angle of panel 1 is more suiting for
bryophytes; less downward facing surfaces. This
influences the coverage positively.
What is the impact of bioreceptive facade panels on the urban environment
in The Netherlands?
Climate simulations
• Goal: Measuring direct factors of bryophytes presence in the urban climate at
street height in the urban canyon
• Temperature and humidity
• ENVI-met climate modelling software
Climate simulations
• Goal: Measuring direct factors of bryophytes presence in the urban climate at
street height in the urban canyon
• Temperature and humidity
• ENVI-met climate modelling software
• Boundary model of different meteorological parameters
Simulation model
Climate simulations
• Goal: Measuring direct factors of bryophytes presence in the urban climate at
street height in the urban canyon
• Temperature and humidity
• ENVI-met climate modelling software
• Main 3D model including materials, vegetation and soil
Simulation model
Simulation input
• Weather data from EPW file (Rotterdam)
• 24 h simulation, starting at sunrise
Simulation model
Simulation input
• Weather data from EPW file (Rotterdam)
• 24 h simulation, starting at sunrise
• Average summer day in The Netherlands (<25 °C)
°C
Meteorological summer
Simulation day Simulation model
Simulation input
• LCZ 3 – Compact lowrise
• Middle street
• Receptor (1.5 m)
Simulation model
Simulation input
• LCZ 3 – Compact lowrise
• Middle street
• Receptor (1.5 m)
N
Simulation input
• LCZ 3 – Compact lowrise
• Middle street
• Receptor (1.5 m)
• Gardens simplified into grass surface
• Façade greening applied to SE and NW facing facades
Simulation model
Simulation input
• LCZ 3 – Compact lowrise
• Middle street
• Receptor (1.5 m)
• Gardens simplified into grass surface
• Façade greening applied to SE and NW facing facades
• Simplification model to 3m x 3m grid
Simulation model
Façade panel properties
• Panel coverage; Panel 1
Coverage ratio =
surface area ratio panel * moss coverage panel *
window-to-wall ratio
1.8 * 0.8 * 0.82 = 1.18
Façade panel properties; scenario 1
• Facade coverage; 70%
All closed surface covered
Façade panel properties; scenario 2
• Facade coverage; 40%
Least amount of coverage
Façade panel properties
• Moss surface area= façade coverage * panel coverage
• Façade coverage in configuration
84%
42%
Bryophyte properties
Simulations
• Simulation 1: Baseline measurement – no greening present (red brick facades)
• Simulation 2: Measurement scenario 1 - Moss
• Simulation 3: Measurement scenario 2 - Moss
Simulations
• Simulation 1: Baseline measurement – no greening present (red brick facades)
• Simulation 2: Measurement scenario 1 - Moss
• Simulation 3: Measurement scenario 2 - Moss
• Simulation 4: Measurement scenario 1 – Ivy facade
Temperature reduction
Relative humidity
Profiles
Profiles
Conclusion
Conclusion
• The simulations show the maximum outdoor temperature reduction during an average summer day in an urban canyon at screen height of a
representative urban configuration in The Netherlands is a range between
Minimum coverage Optimum coverage
+/- 0.2 °C +/- 0.55 °C
Conclusion
• The simulations show the maximum outdoor temperature reduction during an average summer day in an urban canyon at screen height of a
representative urban configuration in The Netherlands is a range between
Minimum coverage Optimum coverage
+/- 0.2 °C +/- 0.55 °C
• The simulations show the maximum outdoor relative humidity increase during an average summer day in an urban canyon at screen height of a
representative urban configuration in The Netherlands is a range between
Minimum coverage Optimum coverage
5.48% 10.21%
Conclusion
• The bioreceptive façade panels perform better in terms of temperature reduction and humidity increase
compared to competitive green wall Ivy
• The bioreceptive façade panels change the time profiles of the humidity levels,
with the Ivy greening this effect is not present
Discussion
• The results are an indication for moss facade in one single climatic condition and configuration.
• Orientation
• Different seasons
• Wind direction/speed
• Influence plant properties; Ivy and Moss facade
Conclusions/discussion
Are bioreceptive façade panels an effective measure to improve city climates in The Netherlands?
Conclusions/discussion
Are bioreceptive façade panels an effective measure to improve city climates in The Netherlands?
Limits of the urban climate
• Dormant bryophytes can lose their aesthetic value (dormant mosses turn brown), their ability to reduce air temperature (evaporation) and partially
their ability to improve air quality(photosynthesis, purify air)
• High levels of solar radiation damages bryophytes
Conclusions/discussion
Are bioreceptive façade panels an effective measure to improve city climates in The Netherlands?
The impact of bryophytes
• Outdoor temperature reduction seems little but still many variables of influence, indoor temperature reduction neglected.
• Promising humidity level increase; contributes to their own habitat conditions.
• Temperature and humidity profiles change.
• Mosses seem more promising than Ivy façade.
Discussion
Are bioreceptive façade panels an effective measure to improve city climates in The Netherlands?
Bryophytes as façade system
Green facade Living wall Bioreceptive facade
Discussion
Green facade Living wall Bioreceptive facade
Material and system
thickness
Discussion
Green facade Living wall Bioreceptive facade
Water retainment
Air purification
Humidity increase
Discussion
Green facade Living wall Bioreceptive facade
Water retainment
Air purification
Humidity increase
Temperature reduction?
Discussion
Green facade Living wall Bioreceptive facade
Water retainment
Air purification
Humidity increase
But;
Limited by dormancy
Discussion
Green facade Living wall Bioreceptive facade
Resilient system
Promising for continuing research
Promising for continuing research
• Relationship between exterior/interior temperature and bryophytes
• Physical plant properties of bryophytes and species selection
• Field testing panel geometries, optimize coverage and material
Thank you for listening!
References
Aničić, M., Tomašević, M., Tasić, M., Rajšić, S., Popović, A., Frontasyeva, M., Lierhagen, S., &
Steinnes, E. (2009). Monitoring of trace element atmospheric deposition using dry and wet
moss bags: Accumulation capacity versus exposure time. Journal of Hazardous Materials,
171(1-3), 182-188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.05.112
DeMilked. (2015). The Tower of Cedars will be the first vertical evergreen forest in the world
[Render]. https://www.demilked.com/green-apartment-building-tower-trees-tour-des-
cedres-stefano-boeri/
Freepik. (n.d.). Close up of moss on tree [Photograph]. https://www.freepik.com/premium-
photo/close-up-moss-tree-nature-life-background-close-up-tree-bark-with-moss-tree-bark-
texture-with-green-moss_1190061.htm
Guillitte, O. (1995). Bioreceptivity: a new concept for building ecology studies. Science of The
Total Environment, 167(1-3), 215- 220.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-9697(95)04582-l
Manso, S., & Aguado, A. (2016). The use of bio-receptive concrete as a new typology of living
wall systems. Matériaux & Techniques, 104(5), 502.
https://doi.org/10.1051/mattech/2016028
Oke, T. R., Mills, G., Christen, A., & Voogt, J. A. (2017). Introduction. In Urban Climates.
Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781139016476
Van der Hoeven, F., & Wandl, A. (2015). Hotterdam: Hoe ruimte Rotterdam warmer maakt,
hoe dat van invloed is op de gezondheid van de inwoners, en wat er aan te doen is.
https://books.bk.tudelft.nl/index.php/press/catalog/book/isbn.9789461865069
